8 ms·
That's why hundreds of millions of smokers, smoked, after all. They carefully weighed up the evidence, using their medical training, avoided the lies from tobac
by jodrellblank 7y ago
That's why hundreds of millions of smokers, smoked, after all. They carefully weighed up the evidence, using their medical training, avoided the lies from tobacco company advertising, used their "it's just common sense" know-everything superpower, and - in an almost unprecedented moment of human rational decision making - concluded that smoking was better than non-smoking.
No, it didn't happen that way. People smoked because it was cool, and it was cool because marketing people explicitly made it look cool. "Torches of freedom"[1] was how Edward Bernays set out to get women smoking cigarettes, for one famous example, generic "cool guy with a cigarette" in Hollywood films wasn't put there by accident, for another. And one of the main reasons smoking was pushed out was that second hand smoking gives other people cancer. People bought arsenic wallpaper and arsenic cloth. They did not decide, rationally and in full knowledge of the best available information, that green wallpaper was a better choice than their infant child staying alive. Or do you think they did choose that?
OSHA has no moral basis to override or overrule that human being’s own decisions for their own body.
OSHA's basis comes from the fact that there are many human biases, many con tricks, and many unintuitive risks, collectively learned over decades, which one human cannot rationally learn and consider in a short time. Even if that were all it was - a single human choosing whether they gamble with their health - it might be OK, but this is in the situation where a large and well resourced company has a profit-motive to exploit the humans, to coerce them and mislead them and pressure them, to take such risks without due consideration.
And worse, like the case of second hand smoke - you might be willing to climb a high structure without a safety harness, but your willingness means other people will be compelled to do so - by their employers and by peer pressure. You'll be faster, and your equipment costs will be lower. But you'll be putting other people at risk too - if you fall on a coworker, if you drop something on a bystander, if you slip on the floor in your gripless boots and knock someone else - your choices affect other people.
And society is willing to say "we don't want that. You must wear a harness, so that everyone can wear a harness. You must wear grippy boots, so other people can work safely around you.", without "fearing for your life" being a thing which excludes you from the workforce.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
- sneak 7y agoYou’re not free unless you’re free to choose bad decisions as well as good ones. Freedom includes freedom to opt in to risk according to your personal risk tolerance.
- jodrellblank 7y agoYou're not free. You're not free to drive a vehicle on public roads without a license or in a state of disrepair - because you risk harming other drivers and pedestrians. You're not free to adulterate food with sawdust, because it will harm people who eat it. You're not free to put poisons in jars marked for food, because it will harm people who don't know you've done that. You're not free to booby-trap your house because it puts emergency services at risk as well as burglars. You're not free to enslave others or sexually assault them, or take their property or money, because most of society wouldn't like that done to them. You're not free to make industrial noise in a suburban area when most people are trying to sleep, or to make toxic fumes or pollute rivers or groundwater supplies or use carcinogenic insecticide, because more people's need for potable water and sleep and edible food outweighs your need for easy money. OSHA is a continuation of this concept of "other people" who matter and are affected by what you do. Exactly where the limits lie, is collectively determined and up for argument. But to disavow the idea of restricted freedoms at all is somewhere along the lines of self-interest to the point of sociopathy, cluelessness, or inviting someone to shoot you and take your stuff just because they can.